In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not permit the filing of fresh discharge applications once charges have been framed by a court. The Court underscored that such practices should be dealt with strictly to prevent misuse of the judicial process and delays in the criminal justice system.
This judgment was delivered in the case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., where K. Ravi, the appellant, challenged a decision by the Madras High Court that had set aside the framing of charges against Baskar, the second respondent. A bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma restored the order of the Sessions Court, which had framed charges against the accused, and imposed a cost of INR 50,000 on Baskar for filing frivolous applications.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to an incident on November 24, 2009, at the AIADMK Party Office in Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu. An FIR was registered against nine accused, including Baskar, for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following an attack that resulted in the death of the complainant's brother, Veeramani. The attack was allegedly led by S.R. Vetrivel, the AIADMK Town Secretary, to prevent the complainant, ADMK Ravi, and his group from filing a nomination.
After gathering substantial evidence, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet against 31 accused, leading to the case being committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
Legal Issues Involved
Several legal issues arose during the case, primarily revolving around the filing of repeated and vexatious applications to delay the criminal proceedings. Baskar had initially sought discharge from the case under Section 227 of the CrPC, but his application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, a decision that the Madras High Court later upheld.
Despite this, Baskar filed another application under Section 216 of the CrPC, seeking to alter the charges on the grounds that he was not present at the scene of the crime. This too was dismissed by the Sessions Court. However, Baskar persisted and moved the High Court once more, leading to an unusual order that set aside the charges and directed further investigation—prompting K. Ravi to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court sharply criticized the Madras High Court's order, deeming it "unusual and untenable." The Court emphasized the well-established legal principle that once charges are framed, a fresh discharge application is not permissible, particularly when a previous discharge application has already been dismissed.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, quoting the Court’s observation, stated:
"Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking discharge after charges have been framed, especially when a prior application under Section 227 has been dismissed. Unfortunately, such applications are often filed in trial courts, sometimes in ignorance of the law, and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings."
The Court further highlighted the need for lower courts to handle such practices with firm resolve, noting that these applications, even if groundless, force the courts to address them, thereby causing further delays as they are often challenged in higher courts.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the Sessions Court's order framing charges, and ordered Baskar to pay INR 50,000 to the appellant within two weeks. Additionally, the Court directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial against all accused, cautioning that any lack of cooperation could result in the cancellation of their bail.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
